Almost drew my weapon today!

[TFred]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

TFred wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

[...] Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine.

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear around these forums is to never ask legal advice from a police officer... and this goes a long way toward showing us why.

I suggest you go read through some of user's posts on this matter, starting here with the thread on HB 854. He is an attorney, and from what I have read from him, he is confident that someone defending themselves in their home or on their property is in a much better position with the law as it is now, unless they were to do a really good job at writing a specific statute to codify a castle doctrine.

Here's your start: Virginia's Castle Doctrine is based on this section of code, (and the next) but it requires a bit more research after that as well...

Just because there isn't a law about it doesn't mean we don't have one. Kind of like Open Carry, in a way.

TFred

+1.

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

You are absolutely correct, and if most or even a good portion of LEOs are similarly ignorant of the law in this matter, it should be enough to chill every law abiding citizens to their very core.

Maybe we should start a fund to raise money to pay User and some of his colleagues to hold seminars for our LEOs! The pain and suffering saved by victims forced to defend themselves could be very well worth the money donated!

TFred

Well TFred, I will tell you that LEO's gain legal training in the academy by very experienced attorneys. They also undergo regular legal training and updates by attorneys usually from the Commonwealth Attorney's office. I also know most officers on their own time take time to update their legal knowledge from other resources. I'm sorry but I don't support an internet lawyer (who I cannot confirm is one although I'm not denying he isn't) that from what I remember, isn't certified in VA, to give me a seminar?

Also what you all forget- When you are arrested, you are then taken before a magistrate. A magistrate (who is experienced in law) determines if the arrest is legal and meets the requirements of the code section. At that point the case is forwarded to the Commonwealth Attorney who then proceeds with the prosecution if they feel it meets all of the requirements and presents it to a judge or jury.

So what you are saying is that a seminar should be given to all VA magistrates? Commonwealth Attorney? Judges? If the citizen is "law abiding", then all of those "checks and balances" will equal him not being charged or being found not guilty.

I am not against someone shooting someone in self defense. I mentioned in my previous post about more circumstances. Nothing makes me happier than to hear someone shoot an armed robber. I am saying that in this situation, it would not justify such force. Nothing in what was posted comes close to following under HB 854.

I appreciate the further clarification and reminders of the arrest and charging process. I was trying, although perhaps not as successfully as I intended, to make my reply not personal. I keyed off your statement that Virginia does not have a castle doctrine, which is directly contrary to what one of our more respected posters here has stated on multiple occasions. And just to give you a bit of background on him, he is indeed a known attorney (by which I mean he is not anonymous like some of us here, including myself, have chosen to be) who does regularly conduct seminars on the laws of Virginia related to self-defense and the use of deadly force.

Obviously, if you truly believe that Virginia does not have a castle doctrine, one possible implication of that could easily be taken that one is not justified to use deadly force for self-defense. I know it's not that simple. But that is the sort of questions that one raises by making a blanket statement such as that, and coming from a LEO, most of us find that disturbing.

I do appreciate your contributions, and I hope we all do continue to learn from each other.

TFred

 

[peter nap]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote: That from one of the limber wristed wonder boys that wave their "Duty Weapons" every time someone says BOO.:X

Mr. Nap,

Why the personal attack? I can assure you I'm not limp wristed nor do I "wave my duty weapon when someone says boo". What would make you say that? Is it because I added my opinion on the matter, which wasn't against OC, but just stating I don't believe drawing down on someone would be appropriate for this situation? Do I need to be all for OC and feel like a badass carrying a gun and pulling it out one people to gain your approval? I can assure you I have been in situations you can only hope you are never in. I only draw when need be. I would never "almost draw" on someone who walked onto my property...maybe that's just an OC mentality?

Why don't we stop with the internet tough guy posts?

Last to first NC.

stop with the internet tough guy posts

I'm not an Internet Tough Guy. I'll make the same comments in person.

Do I need to be all for OC and feel like a badass carrying a gun and pulling it out one people to gain your approval?

No, you don't need to be all OC and in fact as I've said before, you're on safari here and you won't gain my approval period!

I don't believe drawing down on someone would be appropriate for this situation?

The OP didn't "Draw Down", he responded reasonably.

Why the personal attack?

Read item two!

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

TFred wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

[...] Keep in mind that VA does not have a castle doctrine.

One of the most common pieces of advice you hear around these forums is to never ask legal advice from a police officer... and this goes a long way toward showing us why.

I suggest you go read through some of user's posts on this matter, starting here with the thread on HB 854. He is an attorney, and from what I have read from him, he is confident that someone defending themselves in their home or on their property is in a much better position with the law as it is now, unless they were to do a really good job at writing a specific statute to codify a castle doctrine.

Here's your start: Virginia's Castle Doctrine is based on this section of code, (and the next) but it requires a bit more research after that as well...

Just because there isn't a law about it doesn't mean we don't have one. Kind of like Open Carry, in a way.

TFred

+1.

But NovaCop's post is a good insight into what you would face if you find yourself in this situation and the police get involved. Even if the law is on your side ultimately, you can still have a government-caused bad day.

You are absolutely correct, and if most or even a good portion of LEOs are similarly ignorant of the law in this matter, it should be enough to chill every law abiding citizens to their very core.

Maybe we should start a fund to raise money to pay User and some of his colleagues to hold seminars for our LEOs! The pain and suffering saved by victims forced to defend themselves could be very well worth the money donated!

TFred

Well TFred, I will tell you that LEO's gain legal training in the academy by very experienced attorneys. They also undergo regular legal training and updates by attorneys usually from the Commonwealth Attorney's office. I also know most officers on their own time take time to update their legal knowledge from other resources. I'm sorry but I don't support an internet lawyer (who I cannot confirm is one although I'm not denying he isn't) that from what I remember, isn't certified in VA, to give me a seminar?

Also what you all forget- When you are arrested, you are then taken before a magistrate. A magistrate (who is experienced in law) determines if the arrest is legal and meets the requirements of the code section. At that point the case is forwarded to the Commonwealth Attorney who then proceeds with the prosecution if they feel it meets all of the requirements and presents it to a judge or jury.

So what you are saying is that a seminar should be given to all VA magistrates? Commonwealth Attorney? Judges? If the citizen is "law abiding", then all of those "checks and balances" will equal him not being charged or being found not guilty.

I am not against someone shooting someone in self defense. I mentioned in my previous post about more circumstances. Nothing makes me happier than to hear someone shoot an armed robber. I am saying that in this situation, it would not justify such force. Nothing in what was posted comes close to following under HB 854.

I appreciate the further clarification and reminders of the arrest and charging process. I was trying, although perhaps not as successfully as I intended, to make my reply not personal. I keyed off your statement that Virginia does not have a castle doctrine, which is directly contrary to what one of our more respected posters here has stated on multiple occasions. And just to give you a bit of background on him, he is indeed a known attorney (by which I mean he is not anonymous like some of us here, including myself, have chosen to be) who does regularly conduct seminars on the laws of Virginia related to self-defense and the use of deadly force.

Obviously, if you truly believe that Virginia does not have a castle doctrine, one possible implication of that could easily be taken that one is not justified to use deadly force for self-defense. I know it's not that simple. But that is the sort of questions that one raises by making a blanket statement such as that, and coming from a LEO, most of us find that disturbing.

I do appreciate your contributions, and I hope we all do continue to learn from each other.

TFred

TFred,

The comments about the personal attacks were not directed towards you. I believed by "Castle Doctrine", it was directed towards the protection of property such as Texas has but VA doesn't. Refer to the Joe Horn case (which would be an interesting discussion on here). Also, from my understanding, the HB 854 has passed in senate, however, from my last update, has yet to be signed into law or started since it is not the new fiscal year (July 1st). Also, from what I read about that code, it only dictates "entering/in a dwelling for violent intent", which was not the case in this situation. There has always been self defense exceptions in VA, so I don't see how it is much different than what we already have. I am never against self defense, and I am not sure why anyone would be? I was only commenting on this situation, although he did not draw, it seemed that he indicated that he was close to. I was merely giving my opinion on why it would be a bad idea, although in my first post I did say that it would be smart to have a gun on his person.

I stop by this site to learn from the posters and to read viewpoints from others. I am not trying to push my views on anyone and I don't disagree with many viewpoints presented. I am not on a "safari" as mentioned above, but only enjoy discussions and reasonable debates.

 

[TFred]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

The comments about the personal attacks were not directed towards you. I believed by "Castle Doctrine", it was directed towards the protection of property such as Texas has but VA doesn't. Refer to the Joe Horn case (which would be an interesting discussion on here). Also, from my understanding, the HB 854 has passed in senate, however, from my last update, has yet to be signed into law or started since it is not the new fiscal year (July 1st). Also, from what I read about that code, it only dictates "entering/in a dwelling for violent intent", which was not the case in this situation. There has always been self defense exceptions in VA, so I don't see how it is much different than what we already have. I am never against self defense, and I am not sure why anyone would be? I was only commenting on this situation, although he did not draw, it seemed that he indicated that he was close to. I was merely giving my opinion on why it would be a bad idea, although in my first post I did say that it would be smart to have a gun on his person.

I stop by this site to learn from the posters and to read viewpoints from others. I am not trying to push my views on anyone and I don't disagree with many viewpoints presented. I am not on a "safari" as mentioned above, but only enjoy discussions and reasonable debates.

No, it died in the Senate's Courts of Justice Committee. You can check the status on any bill using the Virginia Legislative Information System (LIS). The entry for HB 854 is here, and the final status says: "03/03/10 Senate: Passed by indefinitely in Courts of Justice (9-Y 6-N)" "Passed by indefinitely" is the opposite of "passed". They say "reported from" if it successfully makes it out of the committee.

As for Castle Doctrine, I guess there are many different definitions. Most of us here are quite familiar with the Joe Horn case, and are well aware that Virginia does not allow for the use of deadly force to protect property.

To me, the primary purpose of a castle doctrine should be to protect someone who has had to use deadly force to protect themselves from a criminal act, without having to fight the legal system, both criminal and civil. It's a huge topic, difficult to describe fully in just a few words, so that is not my intent.

TFred

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

The comments about the personal attacks were not directed towards you. I believed by "Castle Doctrine", it was directed towards the protection of property such as Texas has but VA doesn't. Refer to the Joe Horn case (which would be an interesting discussion on here). Also, from my understanding, the HB 854 has passed in senate, however, from my last update, has yet to be signed into law or started since it is not the new fiscal year (July 1st). Also, from what I read about that code, it only dictates "entering/in a dwelling for violent intent", which was not the case in this situation. There has always been self defense exceptions in VA, so I don't see how it is much different than what we already have. I am never against self defense, and I am not sure why anyone would be? I was only commenting on this situation, although he did not draw, it seemed that he indicated that he was close to. I was merely giving my opinion on why it would be a bad idea, although in my first post I did say that it would be smart to have a gun on his person.

I stop by this site to learn from the posters and to read viewpoints from others. I am not trying to push my views on anyone and I don't disagree with many viewpoints presented. I am not on a "safari" as mentioned above, but only enjoy discussions and reasonable debates.

No, it died in the Senate's Courts of Justice Committee. You can check the status on any bill using the Virginia Legislative Information System (LIS). The entry for HB 854 is here, and the final status says: "03/03/10 Senate: Passed by indefinitely in Courts of Justice (9-Y 6-N)" "Passed by indefinitely" is the opposite of "passed". They say "reported from" if it successfully makes it out of the committee.

As for Castle Doctrine, I guess there are many different definitions. Most of us here are quite familiar with the Joe Horn case, and are well aware that Virginia does not allow for the use of deadly force to protect property.

To me, the primary purpose of a castle doctrine should be to protect someone who has had to use deadly force to protect themselves from a criminal act, without having to fight the legal system, both criminal and civil. It's a huge topic, difficult to describe fully in just a few words, so that is not my intent.

TFred

Oh I thought that doctrine would pass easily, but I wasn't keeping up on it. I guess not all cases of self defense are not clear cut enough not to charge. Is it best to run cases through the court? That's a tough one. I'd like to think that most Commonwealth Attorneys would understand what effects that would have (mostly monetary) for someone to go through. Even in the most overwhelming self defense cases involving police they are placed on leave, interrogated, investigated, and the case is presented to a grand jury.

Guess it's still better to be alive

 

[TFred]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Oh I thought that doctrine would pass easily, but I wasn't keeping up on it. I guess not all cases of self defense are not clear cut enough not to charge. Is it best to run cases through the court? That's a tough one. I'd like to think that most Commonwealth Attorneys would understand what effects that would have (mostly monetary) for someone to go through. Even in the most overwhelming self defense cases involving police they are placed on leave, interrogated, investigated, and the case is presented to a grand jury.

Guess it's still better to be alive

We'd all like to think that. It's not in Virginia, but the most heinous example that comes to mind is an active case in Philadelphia right now where a smaller, non-Caucasian man was forced to defend himself against a larger group of several most-likely drunk, larger, all-white, and politically well-connected frat/jock boys late one night after they had been bar-hopping.

Despite the fact that the shooting was entirely captured on video tape, and clearly shows both attempts to evade and the proper escalation of force, the shooter, who is the true victim in the case, is being charged with all sorts of ridiculous crimes. Despite the fact that the attacker kept attacking even while on the ground, the judge said he decided to hold the charges because 6 shots was too many.

You can read much more about this elsewhere, the victim's name is Gerald Ung.

Although not a classic castle doctrine case, since it was on a public street, this is the sort of case that should have never had charges filed, and I sincerely hope that careers are lost (remember Mike Nifong?) because of the decisions made in this case. I don't say that lightly.

TFred

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Oh I thought that doctrine would pass easily, but I wasn't keeping up on it. I guess not all cases of self defense are not clear cut enough not to charge. Is it best to run cases through the court? That's a tough one. I'd like to think that most Commonwealth Attorneys would understand what effects that would have (mostly monetary) for someone to go through. Even in the most overwhelming self defense cases involving police they are placed on leave, interrogated, investigated, and the case is presented to a grand jury.

Guess it's still better to be alive

We'd all like to think that. It's not in Virginia, but the most heinous example that comes to mind is an active case in Philadelphia right now where a smaller, non-Caucasian man was forced to defend himself against a larger group of several most-likely drunk, larger, all-white, and politically well-connected frat/jock boys late one night after they had been bar-hopping.

Despite the fact that the shooting was entirely captured on video tape, and clearly shows both attempts to evade and the proper escalation of force, the shooter, who is the true victim in the case, is being charged with all sorts of ridiculous crimes. Despite the fact that the attacker kept attacking even while on the ground, the judge said he decided to hold the charges because 6 shots was too many.

You can read much more about this elsewhere, the victim's name is Gerald Ung.

Although not a classic castle doctrine case, since it was on a public street, this is the sort of case that should have never had charges filed, and I sincerely hope that careers are lost (remember Mike Nifong?) because of the decisions made in this case. I don't say that lightly.

TFred

Yes I have read up on the Ung case. However, I do not feel like jumping on the bandwagon "self defense" slogan...yet. Although the video does show him outnumbered and engaged in a physical confrontation, I think a lot is missing that I would like to know; Was he drinking? What exactly was said between all parties? Did he have issues with them before? Why was he out at that time? Etc. Not saying that he was in the right or wrong, just would need more info before making my own decision. I have seen video tapes in the past that only capture the end of a situation and wrongly depicts what led up to it (not saying that's the case here).

 

[TFred]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Yes I have read up on the Ung case. However, I do not feel like jumping on the bandwagon "self defense" slogan...yet. Although the video does show him outnumbered and engaged in a physical confrontation, I think a lot is missing that I would like to know; Was he drinking? What exactly was said between all parties? Did he have issues with them before? Why was he out at that time? Etc. Not saying that he was in the right or wrong, just would need more info before making my own decision. I have seen video tapes in the past that only capture the end of a situation and wrongly depicts what led up to it (not saying that's the case here).

Understandable. The testimony reported at the hearing about a week ago, along with the massive PR campaign conducted by yet again, "friends" of the attacker's family, have sealed my opinion, barring some earth-shattering revelation of evidence that has somehow been suppressed. And given the level of the PR effort thus far, and their effort to paint DiDonato as the helpless victim here, that is very doubtful.

TFred

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

TFred wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Yes I have read up on the Ung case. However, I do not feel like jumping on the bandwagon "self defense" slogan...yet. Although the video does show him outnumbered and engaged in a physical confrontation, I think a lot is missing that I would like to know; Was he drinking? What exactly was said between all parties? Did he have issues with them before? Why was he out at that time? Etc. Not saying that he was in the right or wrong, just would need more info before making my own decision. I have seen video tapes in the past that only capture the end of a situation and wrongly depicts what led up to it (not saying that's the case here).

Understandable. The testimony reported at the hearing about a week ago, along with the massive PR campaign conducted by yet again, "friends" of the attacker's family, have sealed my opinion, barring some earth-shattering revelation of evidence that has somehow been suppressed. And given the level of the PR effort thus far, and their effort to paint DiDonato as the helpless victim here, that is very doubtful.

TFred

This would be an interesting court case to sit in on. Maybe there will be some publicity over the case which will let us see some of the proceedings.

 

[user]

imported post

Tell the kid to run into the house and tell you quietly when that happens. If it had been Badguy, he'd have turned himself into a target by staying where he was and raising a big fuss.

 

[Pagan]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Was he drinking? What exactly was said between all parties? Did he have issues with them before? Why was he out at that time? Etc. Not saying that he was in the right or wrong, just would need more info before making my own decision. I have seen video tapes in the past that only capture the end of a situation and wrongly depicts what led up to it (not saying that's the case here).

Why he was out at the time, seems irrelevant to me, unless there is some curfew for adults. Why he was out, is his business, what happened while being out is relevant,IMO.

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

Pagan wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Was he drinking? What exactly was said between all parties? Did he have issues with them before? Why was he out at that time? Etc. Not saying that he was in the right or wrong, just would need more info before making my own decision. I have seen video tapes in the past that only capture the end of a situation and wrongly depicts what led up to it (not saying that's the case here).

Why he was out at the time, seems irrelevant to me, unless there is some curfew for adults. Why he was out, is his business, what happened while being out is relevant,IMO.

I'm just looking at the totality of the circumstances. Being out late at night may be legal, but it could play into a larger picture. Just how time of day can be factored into your articulation to terry stop someone. Besides the point... what I'm saying is that I am curious why he was out there and what exactly he was doing to help me form my own opinion on the matter.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

I can't make out from my reading of the preceding posts but it appears that the most important (in my opinion) part of castle doctrine that an actual written statute would cover is civil immunity.

If there is no criminal charge in a self-defense claim, then the attacker's family cannot sue the victim.

To me that would be just as important as having an actual statute that places the burden of proof on the investigating agency to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DIDN'T have just cause for using deadly force to stop an assailant/intruder.

Many good people's lives and fortunes, such that they may be, have been ruined not only by punitive assaults on their personal liberties by the criminal system, but also by the VERY LIBERAL civil litigation courts.

 

[Pagan]

imported post

But if you were the investigating officer in this case, would any suspect be required to answer this question, IF he was in the mood for speaking without a lawyer? The question from an investigating officer of this sort, just bugs me for some reason, I just can't seem to articulate the reason in type....:?, maybe it's just me.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Just how time of day can be factored into your articulation to terry stop someone.

Yeah? You'd still better have a better RAS than "he was out late walking around a bd neighborhood".

 

[peter nap]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

If there is no criminal charge in a self-defense claim, then the attacker's family cannot sue the victim.

Where did you get that idea?
Not only CAN they sue, the burden of proof is much lower.

 

[TFred]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

If there is no criminal charge in a self-defense claim, then the attacker's family cannot sue the victim.

Where did you get that idea?
Not only CAN they sue, the burden of proof is much lower.

I think he is saying that is what a castle doctrine should provide.

TFred

 

[wylde007]

imported post

TFred wrote:

I think he is saying that is what a castle doctrine should provide.

That's EXACTLY what I was saying. I thought I had implied so much in the context.

I know that the burden is lower for civil damages. I'm saying that it SHOULD NOT BE. If criminal charges cannot be reasonably pursued, then civil charges should absolutely not be.

Sorry for any confusion. I bet for a minute there you guys probably thought I'd just gotten my walking papers from the state loony house.:celebrate

 

[peter nap]

imported post

TFred wrote:

peter nap wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

If there is no criminal charge in a self-defense claim, then the attacker's family cannot sue the victim.

Where did you get that idea?
Not only CAN they sue, the burden of proof is much lower.

I think he is saying that is what a castle doctrine should provide.

TFred

Oh...sorry

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Just how time of day can be factored into your articulation to terry stop someone.

Yeah? You'd still better have a better RAS than "he was out late walking around a bd neighborhood".

I stated that it can be FACTORED into articulation.

Example: It's 3:00 am in a parking lot (known for GLA from autos) and two males wearing dark clothes are peering into a vehicle with a flashlight. RAS to stop.

Now if it's 3:00 pm and two males are peering into a vehicle, probably won't get stopped.